I spent an hour reviewing our troll's activity on this board and inadvertently learned some things about the board community. This post will summarize some of them.

The man whom we know as Bruce McDonkie is in fact DE, a former Mormon, former evangelical, former Baha'i, former follower of Dr. Dahesh. We know that he was expelled from at least three of those groups, more than once for threatening physical violence and even murder. Underlying this chaos is a self-reported diagnosis of mental illness. Searching my memory, the word "Dahesh" and the word "Baha'i" (not even bothering with his favorite sexual terms or political "tells") revealed over 20 different probable pseudonyms, including bendiendo, SonofLaban, phsycic, Mandy Moore, Doctor Dahesh, John dehlin (not), boilerluv, seeker of light, zenith, procrusteanchurch, Ex Aedibus, Questionsforexmos, Anon E. Moss, Aenon E. Moss, nba999, Lurk999, X.o.r.o.l [remove the periods], serge, and many more. I wouldn't be surprised if I have a few of those wrong but the picture remains the same.

What was also interesting, however, was seeing how RfMers treated him in those many threads. What I found was that there were different categories of posters. Surprisingly, a lot of posters put aside their general skepticism and ardently embraced his rants if those rants reinforced their personal interests. He was thus defended, at times strenuously, by the spiritualists among us, also those who believe in NDEs or spiritual visits from the dead; but there were also one or two people who routinely defend specific religions who vouched, sometimes strongly, for some of his assertions. There was also occasional zealous support, mainly from male posters but curiously also from some women, for DE's misogyny and his racism.

Another category was RfM posters who condemned almost everything DE wrote on the grounds that someone who is obviously mendacious cannot be trusted on any topic. Even when DE sounded coherent, these skeptics consistently kept their distance. Among them were Hie, DavetheAtheist, Brother of Jerry, and some more. (Apologies to those whom I am missing.) Then there were the empathetic sort who were warm to DE and his fellow travelers but withheld any judgment. Summer is high on that list although there were others as well.

From these observations I propose three conclusions. First, there has been a shift in attitudes on RfM. Five or seven years ago there was much less tolerance for racism and misogyny than there is now. Part of the subsequent evolution is probably due to the changing political dialogue in the rich countries; another part may stem from the refuge status that RfM has given those who are not welcome on the alternative ex-Mo sites. But for whatever reason, critical mass has been achieved and the number of people who firmly endorse DE's political and racial and gender views has risen dramatically over the last several years.

Second, the DE experience provides some evidence for Mark Twain's (sometimes confused with EOD) observation that the vast majority of people will believe whatever it is in their material interests to believe. They will proclaim good will and morality at all times, but the best indicator of what they will actually do and think is self-interest. In short, "does that statement confirm my beliefs?" It appears that DE wittingly or unwittingly played on that tendency, obtaining support in his various arguments from people who are generally logical but suspended that discipline when they desperately wanted what he said to be true. The predisposition to "forgive" bad behavior and espouse someone whose views are sympatico with one's own is not something about which humans should feel great pride.

Third, the RfM record indicates that Twain may have overestimated the degree of popular venality. The number of people who consistently maintained their independent judgment was, I would argue, reasonably high--perhaps 20 or 25%. Maybe this is because honest and critical thinkers are more common among those who have escaped from cults. Maybe it stems from the generally higher level of education among those who participate in a rather esoteric internet community. But for whatever reason, it appears that a decent chunk of our community is strong enough to maintain their integrity even when temped by the fruit of fraudulent self-affirmation.

Are these musings relevant to Mormonism? I think they are. For a time ED was a Mormon apologist, embraced by many, respected by many. Like many religionists, he later shifted from one faith to another. A narcissist, he used these religions to assert his intellectual and moral superiority; he sought a following and grew furious when people realized he was a charlatan. In short, he resembles in some respects the early Mormon prophets--and some of the modern ones--as well as a number of charismatic political leaders.

There is also, however, information to be gleaned about Twain's misanthropic remarks regarding the plasticity of human moral judgment. At various times ED enjoyed a lot of support here. Sometimes a poster would denounce him until he said something that poster liked, and then a deep emotional alliance formed--sometimes never to die. Other posters would defend him long after his current incarnation was no longer credible in the fear that renouncing him would undermine their own religious or political values. In short, there were brief times when some incarnation of ED exercised a cultish influence over RfM. He wasn't the most competent fraud, but he was good enough to deceive many for considerable periods of time when it was in their interests to be deceived.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2019 05:26PM by Lot's Wife.

What a well thought out assessment of recent RfM history.

We should all give thanks that your backward stare didn't turn you into a pillar of salt.

The day is young, Shummy. The day is young.

Is this throwing salt in a wound?

Pretty good assessment. In my experience the know it alls in Gosphel Doctrine were the ones who tended to go off the deep end.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my experience the know it alls in Gosphel Doctrine were the ones who tended to go off the deep end.

Oooh, do tell! I would love to hear more on that sometime if you wanted to start a thread on it. I remember those know-it-alls in my class, including the teacher....I wasn't in long enough to see any deep ends though....

People who post with multiple names are frustrating and cowardly. Most of us don't have time to sleuth around trying to figure out who is who, so I'm grateful admin and other posters like Ms. Lot let us know.

Even the most crazy posters (I'm one) occasionally post topics that might be worthwhile to me. You bring up a good point that we tend to look for our own biases and need to be aware when we are doing so based on fact, emotion or opinion.

Like with Social Media, we can't know what is behind the posts of all the various views. If the Russia and bot thing teaches anything, it is to be suspicious of how we might be being manipulated.

Thanks to the posters who have the patience and take the time to call out and confront views so we can better weigh the facts.

Trolls are very popular right now. Pink hair. Blue hair. They are everywhere in the Universal theme parks---Poppy, Branch, even Guy Diamond who farts glitter. Still, I thought denigrating the name of Bruce R. McConkie was just going a step too far and I appreciate this excellent summary.

Now though, I am wracking my brain to remember if I was valiant in the War against Bruce R. McDonkie. I'm usually valiant in Holy Wars but this time I just can't remember.

"Still, I thought denigrating the name of Bruce R. McConkie was just going a step too far and I appreciate this excellent summary."


You're kidding, right?

If not, try reading or rereading some of the weightier entries in Mormon Doctrine. Or the original, not altered, text of his "Seven Great Heresies" speech at BYU. Or you can Google(R) for some random quotes of his.

Then you can decide how important it really is not only for you, but for everyone else as well, to revere the Holy Name of Bruce Redd McConkie.

Yes. I was kidding. I mean, Bruce R. McConkie? What a whack job.

I'm glad to see that. I thought his screen name was really the only thing he had going in his favor.

"They will proclaim good will and morality at all times, but the best indicator of what they will actually do and think is self-interest."

Just an observation here.

I think many modern people (myself included) for whatever reasons (mine probably narcissism) mentally board a rocket ship to take a trip to a celestial satellite of personal enlightenment. From that vantage point they can "see the truth."

Doesn't really matter what it is. No evidence for a God. Women are mostly about torturing men. Illegal or extraterrestrial aliens are corrupting the good societies they knew/know. Politician A is part of a global conspiracy B which is tenacious in fighting for global control of developed societies C and exploitation developing societies D. Global warming is going to end humanity.

I don't really understand how this dovetails with "self interest?"

Everyone here myself included fight for the higher ground. But as I get older I slip further down. I'm probably closing in on the evolutionary mental equivalent of pound scum when comparing my voice and opinions to loftier participants here. I'm okay with this. What I've learned since leaving Mormonism has been literally a library of information as I fell from Kolob's eye in the sky. In looking back to my former Mormon self delusion doesn't even come close to explaining some of my erroneous beliefs and the pattern continues. I'm daily struggling not to yearn for the heavens in accessing myself and others (like sometimes the whole world) in my opinions.

So I'm perplexed what self interest is at play in people for whom knowing things that can't be confirmed because they think they have all the info they need? There has to be something underneath? Something I also have that is the gas in my engine that could determine what's a foot and afoul in this great big inexplicable world?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2019 03:12PM by Elder Berry.

I used the term "self-interest" broadly. People generally do what is in their financial interest, what is in their social interest. They proclaim broad moral principles but almost always compromise if those principles violate their concrete needs and desires. The Elderly Canine has made this cynical point many times.

But I cast the net more broadly to include one's political views and even intellectual commitments. If one has stated time and again that visitations from the other world are actual, then that person will incline towards embracing someone who claims to have met the deceased Lebanese prophet no matter how improbable the evidence behind that assertion. If someone thinks "race" is real, she may applaud the racism of someone who says Adam and his family were a newly created race and that Adam was reincarnated as Pharaoh. Likewise, if someone has expressed inveterate hatred of women, she may defend someone who accuses Mormon and ex-Mormon women of using sex to catch alpha males, spread STIs, etc. On our board each of these examples actually occurred in reply to patently false statements by McDonkie.

So the need for reinforcement of one's own prejudices and hatreds is also a self-interest. McDonkie brought that out many, many times. He thereby demonstrated that illogical and self-interested inclinations survive defection from a cult. That is a fact that should be remembered.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I used the term "self-interest" broadly. People
> generally do what is in their financial interest,
> what is in their social interest. They proclaim
> broad moral principles but almost always
> compromise if those principles violate their
> concrete needs and desires. The Elderly Canine
> has made this cynical point many times.

I agree thus my post. What are those needs and desires? People agreeing with them? An echo chamber? Is McDonkie a text book example of getting needs met here?

> So the need for reinforcement of one's own
> prejudices and hatreds is also a self-interest.
> McDonkie brought that out many, many times. He
> thereby demonstrated that illogical and
> self-interested inclinations survive defection
> from a cult. That is a fact that should be
> remembered.

Well, I don't see it so obvious. It makes me question what ulterior needs I'm seeking in posting here. I've had them pointed out before. My anger was identified as just what it was - lashing out irrationally at the Mormonism I felt betrayed by and made to feel like a supreme fool and mark for a MLM/cult.

Is there something recoverable in McDonkie? Or is RfM for some just the kind of playground they need for a lifetime of bias pinball playing?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Is there something recoverable in McDonkie? Or is
> RfM for some just the kind of playground they need
> for a lifetime of bias pinball playing?

"They" or "We"?

RfM has no choice but to be an "all things to all people" sort of thing. The majority of us wear our 'colors' on our sleeves. McDonkie was a puppy dog in sheep's clothing. While not being certain what his purpose here was, I believe he never had a chance...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "They" or "We"?
>
> RfM has no choice but to be an "all things to all
> people" sort of thing. The majority of us wear
> our 'colors' on our sleeves. McDonkie was a puppy
> dog in sheep's clothing. While not being certain
> what his purpose here was, I believe he never had
> a chance...


Both.

We know what a playground it is.

My point was about the "we."

McDonkie is a profoundly troubled person. He's apparently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, has obvious problems with honesty and with impulse control, has been homeless, has been arrested for threats, etc. He also frequents boards and religions where he wears out his welcome and is then banned. I suspect he saw this as a place where he could have his ego reinforced, and when that didn't happen he got more aggressive.

What I found unnerving was the response he got here. It's probably unrealistic to expect anything different, but a lot of regular posters got lured in by McD on the basis of shared interests. It was unsettling to see generally rational people abandon some of their qualms when they saw him voice sentiments share. That subordination of independent judgment is what happens when people join cults or MLMs or any manner of other fraudulent movement. But it is also what people do, as Nietzsche and Twain and Arandt and Wiesel and many others have pointed out.

It was conversely encouraging to see that there were those who never waivered in saying that a dishonest man is a dishonest man and may not be trusted even if I like some subset of what he is declaiming. Those are the people who one can trust in a time of crisis; they are the ones who will stand up against society and against the state when those entities are oppressing the individual or the truth.

We have such (latent) heroes among us. We should be proud of that.

What if I'm allergic to latex?

Then leather will have to do.

An interesting analysis LW (and kudos to being willing to read through all of DE's threads under all of his aliases). I had not considered looking at it from that angle.

I agree with your conclusions regarding him. Review of him outside of RfM shows a long pattern of deception and willingness to pretend to be something to further his agenda at the moment - whatever that may be. I admit I am not sure exactly how much of what he posted here are his true beliefs vs. an act.

It is part of human nature, I think, to seek confirmation of our own beliefs and hopes. Also to minimize things that contradict them. That is part of the reason for mormonism's survival. How much of this BRMcD's reason was a search for validation from others, I don't know.

Thanks for your analysis.

A pleasure, my friend.

I don't know how much of Darrick's work here was designed to obtain affirmation as opposed to an effort at conversion, but I would add that the latter is often a form of the former. The common theme in his posts over the years has been an attempt to persuade others that his is the correct path and we should join him.

People like Darrick are a dime a dozen. I'm more interested in popular gullibility, an inherent part of human psychology that wanes and waxes in power depending largely on one's environment. It was easy to be a Nazi in 1933 Germany; likewise easy to follow the mullahs in 1978 and 1979 Iran. People--most people--look back on such enthusiasms with embarrassment and regret.

Our recent forays into Orwell underscore that point. He warned that democracy is a fragile institution, one that can be knocked over by strong winds. I worry that the weather in the West today is inclement and hence that it behooves us to think carefully about how we react to tinpot charlatans. McDonkie brought us a good opportunity for such introspection.

I don't presume to know much about Bruce R. McDonkie, though I defer to the board mods on his being a troll.

As for his moniker, I thought that it was pretty resourceful and a clever one at that.

Since he has made himself known repeatedly on this forum over the space of many years using various monikers, no doubt this will not be the last we hear of him according to his track record that you have listed here *if* you are correct as to your many assertions.

It sounds like he'll be back under various guises. His writing pattern will be what gives him away. The mods are better at detecting BS than most of us are. I have to congratulate them for maintaining this board as well as they do.

I didn't like him right off the bat and was a bit leery of reading his posts or replying and made sure I didn't go back to see what he had to say in reply!

But it is so easy to get roped in if they play the game right, at least where I'm concerned. I want to believe the best in people and it often comes back to bite me, like, oh I don't know, my whole mormon life!

"But it is so easy to get roped in if they play the game right . . ."

You said it, Sister! True across the board---a lot of boards! And not just this one.

Just wanted to point out DE is not related to Devoted Exmo.

Emphatically so!

Yes, that is he.

His ugliness became more and more apparent. He has disliked me and the other admins from the very beginning with all his various aliases over 20+ years now. He was a Bahai advocate early on then moved onto other things searching for followers. It frustrates him not to have acolytes. I have been very busy and should of sent him packing earlier. He was not here to help.

The reason he left Baha'i and moved to Dehesh*ism is that he was expelled from the former, effectively excommunicated. He was later cut off from the Dehesh community for misbehavior and threats of violence as well.

So consecutively Mormonism, evangelicalism, Baha'i, Dehesh*ism: a four-time loser, at least.

<chortle> ...looking for a truth that would have him...

I just want to say thanks to Eric, CZ, maude, Tevai, and all other moderators for their constant work deleting trolls.
It isn't always easy to identify trolls. The TBMs that come here to tell us to return to church are easy to spot. Trolls like BRMcD as summer said try to fly just below the radar, and it takes some time to determine that they really are trolls.

Eric's assessment of him is correct. He was not here to help.

End of hijack.

>>Then there were the empathetic sort who were warm to DE and his fellow travelers but withheld any judgment. Summer is high on that list although there were others as well.

It may have appeared that way on the surface. Privately, I was deeply concerned about DE and his posts and reported a number of them. If he had a post that passed muster, I did try to respond as I might to any other board member.

I felt that DE was really dragging the board down. I definitely took him as a troll, but of the insidious sort that tries to fly *just* under the radar. In my opinion, this type of poster is the real danger to the health and prosperity of the board. I wondered if he might be a church plant. I'm glad that CZ and the other mods recognized him for who he is, and took action.

Once he mentioned the religion that he was not permitted to name, the lightbulb came on. It can take me a while to put things together. I was probably one of the last people to catch on to Stormy a number of years ago. :)

I went to high school with a brother and sister who belonged to that Bahai religion. I remember them bringing in materials occasionally - which consisted of promotion of one world government (a Bahai dictatorship when one looked into their materials more fully), the essential unity of all religions (basically be nice to each other), and learning Esperanto. The Bahai quotes from the Bab and Bahullah were written in very flowery language, and occasionally linked with scriptures of other religions but only when they agreed. They often recruit through interfaith events.

I've since read up more fully on Bahais and not just from their own materials. Did you know the early Bahais had a violent civil war? They keep quiet about that.

The girl was extremely attractive - still is I'm told - but with a nasty personality, which was decidedly un-Bahai. For example, she went around saying a relative of mine had committed suicide, when it was from long term cancer. Her husband suffered PTSD as a result of her vicious and sometimes physical abuse. The boy on the other hand, was a great guy, and very funny. We got on very well. Neither of them remained members when they got older. It seems the Bahais are much less effective at holding onto the young than the LDS.

Lottie,

I am very impressed with your analysis and *stamina* to read through all that. Better you than me! Your conclusions are very interesting. Thanks for all your work on that, much to think of here!

I agree with CL2, report! I had stopped reading anything he posted but never reported him, eternal vigilance, as they say, the price of a good, supportive Board.

Jordan, that is something I've noticed also about certain religions, people can be very nasty wearing that mantle of 'godliness.' Sorry about your friend with PTSD caused by the girl's lies.

It's a scary world out there, glad we are able to have this little corner to help each other, both regulars and drop-ins, and also hear and learn interesting things.

I appreciate everyone sharing there thoughts on here, so much!

-Mel

Mel, I'm thinking in retrospect that when I reported a post, I could have explained my concerns about the poster more thoroughly. One of my reports was literally, "Please make this go away." Lesson learned.

Also LW-
Thank you for your taking him to task each and every time! You said, albeit much more precisely and eloquently, exactly what I was thinking.

What worries me most about these jerks is that any newcomer who encounters their writings is likely to pick her jaw up from the floor and slowly walk away. With that in mind, I sometimes post replies knowing that both the OP and my screed are likely to go away.

To newcomers, RfM is not the sum of the people who participate (many of the most insightful of whom are silent) but rather the sum of the writings on the board. That's what they see. That's what will shape their opinions of RfM and their desire to join us.

There is a price to hatred and bigotry.